arbiter
JournalsAccount

Understanding Relative Differences with Magnitude-Based Hypotheses: A Methodological Conceptualization and Data Illustration

Dane P. Blevins et al.

Organizational Research Methods2025https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281251377139article
AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Our paper provides a conceptualization of magnitude-based hypotheses (MBHs). We define an MBH as a specific type of hypothesis that tests for relative differences in the independent impact (i.e., effect size difference) of at least two explanatory variables on a given outcome. We reviewed 1,715 articles across eight leading management journals and found that nearly 10% (165) of articles feature an MBH, employing 41 distinct methodological approaches to test them. However, approximately 40% of these papers show missteps in the post-estimation process required to evaluate MBHs. To address this issue, we offer a conceptual framework, an empirical illustration using Bayesian analysis and frequentist statistics, and a decision-tree guideline that outlines key steps for evaluating MBHs. Overall, we contribute a framework for applying MBHs, demonstrating how they can shift theoretical inquiry from binary questions of whether an effect exists, to more comparative questions about how much a construct matters,compared to what, and under which conditions.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281251377139

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{dane2025,
  title        = {{Understanding Relative Differences with Magnitude-Based Hypotheses: A Methodological Conceptualization and Data Illustration}},
  author       = {Dane P. Blevins et al.},
  journal      = {Organizational Research Methods},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281251377139},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Understanding Relative Differences with Magnitude-Based Hypotheses: A Methodological Conceptualization and Data Illustration

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.